Deciding Whether the Section 232 Tariffs Are Safeguard Measures

So far, there have been 13 WTO consultations requests related to the Section 232 tariffs and the subsequent retaliation. Here are the 8 requests against the Section 232 tariffs, which allege violations of the GATT, and also allege that the tariffs are safeguard measures and violate the Safeguards Agreement:

In the cases against the retaliatory tariffs, the U.S. alleges violations of the GATT, and presumably the responding Members will argue that the Section 232 tariffs are safeguard measures, and that the retaliation was taken pursuant to the Safeguards Agreement.

A fundamental question common to both cases is whether the Section 232 tariffs are, in fact, safeguard measures. It would be nice to avoid multiple answers to that question. In this regard, it seems likely that the 8 cases against the U.S. will be consolidated into one proceeding. The 5 cases brought by the U.S. are trickier, because the measure is different in each one, but perhaps a single set of panelists could hear all of the complaints. But could the complaints against the U.S., on the one hand, and the complaints by the U.S., on the other hand, be heard by the same set of panelists? That would be a lot of work for those panelists, so perhaps not. If it is not possible, could the two sets of panelists coordinate their answer to the question of whether the Section 232 tariffs are safeguard measures?

Comments

Deciding Whether the Section 232 Tariffs Are Safeguard Measures

So far, there have been 13 WTO consultations requests related to the Section 232 tariffs and the subsequent retaliation. Here are the 8 requests against the Section 232 tariffs, which allege violations of the GATT, and also allege that the tariffs are safeguard measures and violate the Safeguards Agreement:

In the cases against the retaliatory tariffs, the U.S. alleges violations of the GATT, and presumably the responding Members will argue that the Section 232 tariffs are safeguard measures, and that the retaliation was taken pursuant to the Safeguards Agreement.

A fundamental question common to both cases is whether the Section 232 tariffs are, in fact, safeguard measures. It would be nice to avoid multiple answers to that question. In this regard, it seems likely that the 8 cases against the U.S. will be consolidated into one proceeding. The 5 cases brought by the U.S. are trickier, because the measure is different in each one, but perhaps a single set of panelists could hear all of the complaints. But could the complaints against the U.S., on the one hand, and the complaints by the U.S., on the other hand, be heard by the same set of panelists? That would be a lot of work for those panelists, so perhaps not. If it is not possible, could the two sets of panelists coordinate their answer to the question of whether the Section 232 tariffs are safeguard measures?